ProSlide Technology Inc. v. Whitewater West Industries, Ltd., 2026 FCA 109
This decision addresses the awarding of legal costs following an appeal in a complex patent infringement case. While the appellant (ProSlide) succeeded in restoring the validity of some patents, the respondent (Whitewater) ultimately won on the core issue of non-infringement.
The Federal Court of Appeal ordered the appellant, ProSlide, to pay $25,000 in costs to Whitewater. The Court determined that successfully defending against the primary allegation of patent infringement was the more significant, 'overarching victory,' justifying an award of costs despite the appellant's partial success on other issues.
Kumingi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 698
An applicant from the Democratic Republic of Congo sought judicial review of a study permit refusal. The refusal was based on the officer's doubts about the family relationship with the financial sponsor (the applicant's father).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, deeming it moot. The Court found that because IRCC had already reconsidered and issued a new, third decision, there was no longer a live controversy regarding the decision under review.
Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 697
A work permit applicant was refused and found inadmissible for misrepresentation. The officer concluded the applicant could not perform the job duties and that the job offer from a car repair shop was not genuine due to the employer's perceived financial inability.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the decision was reached in a procedurally unfair manner. The Court ruled that the applicant was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the officer's core concerns, which were only raised at the end of the interview.
Duhar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 699
An elderly widowed mother, in Canada for a decade and deeply integrated with her children's and grandchildren's lives, was denied permanent residence on H&C grounds. The officer gave her establishment 'neutral weight' because it was centered on her family.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply dismiss deep, family-based establishment and must assess an applicant's unique, real-life circumstances.
Emrani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 705
An Afghan woman, a former politician and women's rights activist, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. An IRCC officer refused her application, finding insufficient hardship to warrant an in-Canada exemption.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to properly analyze the severe, personalized risks the applicant would face if forced to return to Afghanistan, and incorrectly used the Temporary Suspension of Removals (TSR) to minimize this hardship.
Siddiqui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 683
A 66-year-old retired citizen of Pakistan was refused a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit his family in Canada. An IRCC officer was not satisfied he would leave at the end of his stay, citing weak ties to his home country.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer made significant errors by improperly speculating about the applicant's wife, overlooking evidence of his sister, and ignoring his property ownership in Pakistan.
Pjetrushi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 673
The applicant was found inadmissible for serious criminality committed outside Canada. His application for criminal rehabilitation was refused by a Minister's delegate, who concluded he showed a 'pattern of disregarding the law' based on his past crimes and his use of fraudulent documents to flee Albania and enter Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the delegate's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly consider the applicant's explanation for using false documents—to escape a blood feud—and wrongly dismissed all supporting character evidence as merely 'self-serving'.
Mohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 682
An Iranian citizen, whose parents reside in Canada on work permits, applied for an open work permit to join them. The officer refused the application, finding she had not demonstrated she would leave Canada, citing a lack of family ties outside Canada and insufficient financial establishment in Iran.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the reasons provided were not intelligible or transparent, as they failed to engage with the applicant's evidence of financial and family ties to Iran and did not properly consider the purpose of the application—family reunification.
Kinfack v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 668
A mother and her adult son, who was receiving life-saving cancer treatment in Canada, applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused their application, concluding that adequate medical care was available in their home country of Cameroon, despite clear medical evidence to the contrary.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer made a critical error by selectively interpreting a doctor's letter, ignoring its substantive content and focusing on a standard closing phrase to justify the refusal.
Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 659
The applicant, a taxi driver from India with no agricultural experience, applied for a work permit as a general farm worker in Canada. The immigration officer refused the application, doubting his ability to perform the work.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It confirmed that visa officers have the discretion to independently assess an applicant's ability to do the job, even if the position's official requirements (NOC/LMIA) do not specify any prior experience.
